Наукометрический анализ литературы по теме «научные социальные сети»

В последние несколько десятилетий научная коммуникация все шире осуществляется посредством академических социальных сетей. Целью статьи является рассмотрение академических социальных сетей как инструмента исследования и как объекта изучения в научных публикациях. Проведено наукометрическое исследование документопотока по проблеме «научные социальные сети» (НСС), представленного в Web of Science (1216 документов). Установлено, что исследуемый информационный массив содержит не только публикации, в которых НСС являются объектом исследования, но и статьи, в которых НСС указываются как источники библиографических данных для проведения систематического обзора или метаанализа (преимущественно в медицине); либо как репозиторий экспериментальных данных. Показано, что публикации в БД WoS появляются с 2005 г. США, Вуллвертонский университет (Великобритания) и Телволл М. – страна, организация и автор – лидирующие по числу публикаций по проблеме НСС. Журналы, в которых опубликованы документы исследуемого массива, отнесены к областям: Информатика; Информатика и библиотечное дело; Машиностроение; Инженерия и технологии. Четыре из 10 наиболее часто цитируемых публикаций по НСС посвящены альтметрикам. Анализ коцитирования документов, выполненный с использованием программы для наукометрических исследований свободного доступа CiteSpace, позволил выявить основные исследовательские фронты: на заре появления НСС в информационном пространстве ученые обсуждали «рекомендации сообщества», соотношение «профессиональное индексирование контента/фольксономия» и «проблему холодного старта». По мере развития НСС основным предметом научных исследований стали альтернативные метрики, применяемые в НСС. Последнее утверждение подтверждается анализом сочетаемости слов, также выполненным с использованием CiteSpace. Показано, что наиболее частотными ключевыми словами исследуемого документопотока являются «альтметрики», «влияние» и «цитирование».

1. Маршакова-Шайкевич И. В. Система cвязей между документами, построенная на основе ссылок: по данным Science Citation Index // Научнотехническая информация. Серия. 2. Информационные процессы и системы. 1973. № 6. С. 3–8 [Marshakova-Shaikevich IV (1973) The system of documents link based on references: Science Citation Index data. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Seriya. 2. Informatsionnye protsessy i sistemy 6: 3–8. (In Russ.)].

2. Agrawal S, Goel AD, Gupta N, Lohiya A and Gonuguntla HK (2020) Diagnostic utility of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) features in differentiating malignant and benign lymph nodes – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiratory Medicine 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106097.

3. Ahmed A and Xing EP (2017) Recovering time-varying networks of dependencies in social and biological studies. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of United States of America 106(29): 11878–11883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901910106.

4. Bajwa MS, Tudur-Smith C., Shaw RJ and Schache AG (2017) Fibrin sealants in soft tissue surgery of the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clinical Otolaryngology 42(6): 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12837.

5. Bhardwaj RK (2017) Academic social networking sites: comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia. edu, Mendeley and Zotero. Information and Learning Science 118(5/6): 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0012.

6. Bornmann L (2015) Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics 103(3): 1123–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y.

7. Bornmann L (2014) Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 8(4): 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005.

8. Borrego Á (2017) Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: the depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing 30(3): 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1099.

9. Boyd DM and Ellison NB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.

10. Calacanis J (2007) Web 3.0, the “official” definition. The personal blog of angel investor and entrepreneur Jason Calacanis. URL: https://calacanis.com/2007/10/03/web-3-0-the-official-definition/ (accessed 10.03.2021).

11. Carrigan M (2019) Social media for academics. New York: SAGE Publ.

12. Chen C and Song M (2019) Visualizing a field of research: a methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLOS One 14(10): e0223994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994.

13. Cobo MJ, Lopez-Herera AG, Herera-Viedma E and Herera H (2011) Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(7): 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.

14. Costas R, Zahedi Z and Wouters P (2015) Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology 66(10): 2003– 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309.

15. Demaine J (2018) Rediscovering forgotten research: Sleeping Beauties at the University of Waterloo. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 6(3): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.3.4.

16. Eysenbach G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4): e123. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012.

17. Goble CA, Bhagat J, Aleksejevs S, Cruickshank D, Michaelides D, Newman D, Borkum M, Bachhofer S, Roos M, Li P and De Roure D (2010) myExperiment: a repository and social network for the sharing of bioinformatics workflows. Nucleic Acids Research 38: W677–W682. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq429.

18. Golder SA and Huberman BA (2006) Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science 32(2): 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506062337.

19. Guler AT, Waaijer CJF and Palmblad M (2016a) Scientific workflows for bibliometrics. Scientometrics 107(2): 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1885-6.

20. Guler AT, Waaijer CJF, Mohammed Y and Palmblad M (2016b) Automating bibliometric analyses using Taverna scientific workflow: a tutorial on integrating web services. Journal of Informetrics 10(3): 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.05816.

21. Hammond T, Hannay T, Lund B and Scott J (2005) Social bookmarking tools (I): a general review. D-Lib Magazine 11(4). URL: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html (accessed 10.03.2021). https://doi.org/10.1045/april2005-hammond

22. Haustein S, Peters I, Bar-Ilan J, Priem J, Shema H and Terliesner J (2014) Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics 101(2): 1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.

23. Hotho A, Jaschke R, Schmitz Ch and Stumme G (2006) Information retrieval in folksonomies: search and ranking. The semantic web: research and applications: proc. of 3rd Europ. Semantic Web conf. ESWC 2006 (Budva, June 11–14, 2006). Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 411– 426. https://doi.org/10.1007/11762256_31.

24. Jamali HR and Nabavi M (2015) Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics 105(3): 1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2.

25. Jordan K (2014) Academics and their online networks: exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday 19(11). URL: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4937 (accessed 22.04.2020). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937.

26. Ke H-R and Chen Y-N (2012) Structure and pattern of social tags for keyword selection behaviors. Scientometrics 92(1): 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0718-5.

27. Kim H-N and El Saddik A (2013) Exploring social tagging for personalized community recommendations. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 23(2/3): 249– 285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-012-9130-3.

28. Kipp MEI (2011) User, author and professional indexing in context: an exploration of tagging practices on CiteULike. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 35(1): 17–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2011.0008.

29. Lee D (2020) Bibliometric analysis of Korean Journals in Arts and Kinesiology – from the perspective of authorship. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 8(3): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2020.8.3.2.

30. Li X, Thelwall M and Giustini D (2012) Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91(2): 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.

31. Lund B, Hammond T, Flack M and Hannay T (2005) Social bookmarking tools (II). D-Lib Magazine 11(04). URL: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/lund/04lund.html (accessed 10.03.2021). https://doi.org/10.1045/april2005-lund.

32. Mazurek G, Gorska A, Kozynski P and Silva S (2020) Social networking sites and researcher’s success. Journal of Computer Information Systems 62(2): 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1783724.

33. Mohammadi E and Thelwall M (2014) Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology 65(8): 1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071.

34. Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Haustein S and Lariviere V (2015) Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology 66(9): 1832–1846. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23286.

35. Neal DR (ed) (2012) Social media for academics: a practical guide. Oxford: Chandos Publ.

36. Nentwich M and König R (2012) Cyberscience 2.0: research in the age of digital social network. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.

37. Nishavathi E, Jeyshankar R (2020) A scientometric social network analysis of international collaborative publications of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 8(3): 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2020.8.3.5.

38. O’Brien K (2019) ResearchGate. Journal of Medical Library Association 107(2): 10–12. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.643.

39. O’Reilly T (2007) What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communicatons & Strategies 65(1): 17–37.

40. Ortega J-L (2020) Altmetrics data providers: a meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication. El Profesional de la Información 29(1): e290107.

41. Ortega J-L (2016) Social network sites for scientists a quantitative survey. Kent: Elsevier.

42. Pattanashetti DM and Harinarayana NS (2017) Assessment of mechanical engineering research output using scientometric indicators: a comparative study of India, Japan, and South Korea. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 5(2): 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2017.5.2.5.

43. Priem J and Hemminger BH (2010) Scientometrics 2.0: new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday 15(7). URL: https://journals3-staging.lib.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874 (accessed 10.03.2021).

44. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P and Neylon C (2010) Altmetrics: a manifesto. Altmetrics. URL: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (accessed 04.05.2021).

45. R awashdeh M, Kim H-N, Alja’am JM and El Saddik A (2013) Folksonomy link prediction based on a tripartite graph for tag recommendation. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 40(2): 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-012-0227-2.

46. Rohani VA, Kasirun ZM, Kumar S and Shamshirband Sh (2014) An effective recommender algorithm for cold-start problem in academic social networks. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 14: 123726. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/123726.

47. Simmons SM, Caird JK, Ta A, Sterzer F and Hagel BE (2020) Plight of the distracted pedestrian: a research synthesis and meta-analysis of mobile phone use on crossing behaviour. Injury Prevention 26(2): 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2019-04342.

48. Singh S and Pandita R (2018) Measurement of global nursing research output: A bibliometric study (1996–2015). Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 6(1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.1.3.

49. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of American Society for Information Science 24(4): 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406.

50. Sun Q, He M, Zhang M, Zeng Sh, Chen L, Zhou L and Xu H (2020) Ursolic acid: a systematic review of its pharmacology, toxicity and rethink on its pharmacokinetics based on PK-PD model. Fitoterapia 147: 104735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2020.104735.

51. Teif VB (2013) Science 3.0: corrections to the Science 2.0 paradigm. URL: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.2522.pdf (accessed 10.03.2021).

52. Thelwall M (2017) Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? Scientometrics 113(3): 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2557-x.

53. Thelwall M and Kousha K (2014) Academia.edu: social network or academic network? Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology 65(4): 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038.

54. Thelwall M and Kousha K (2015) ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology 66(5): 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236.

55. Thelwall M and Kousha K (2017) ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics 112(2): 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4.

56. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Lariviere V and Sugimolo CR (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One 8(5): e64841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.

57. Van Noorden R (2014) Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature 512(7513): 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a.

58. Weldegebreal F and Worku T (2019) Precancerous cervical lesion among HIV-positive women in SubSaharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Control 26(1): 107327481984587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274819845872.

59. Wolstencroft K, Haines R, Fellows D, Williams A, Withers A, Owen S, Soiland-Reyes S, Dunlop I, Nenadic A, Fisher P, Bhagat J, Belhajjame K, Bacall F, Hardisty A, Nieva de la Hidalga A, Balcazar Vargas MP, Sufi Sh and Goble C (2013) The Taverna workflow suite: designing and executing workflows of Web Services on the desktop, web or in the cloud. Nucleic Acids Research 41(W1): W557–W561. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt328.

60. Yang K, Lee H (2018) Quantifying quality: research performance evaluation in Korean universities. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 6(3): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.3.5.

61. Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P (2014) How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics 101(2): 1491–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.